To me, collective amnesia of the Tiananmen incident 21 years ago fascinates and scares me. Is our understanding of history durable and resilient, ever marching on closer to the Truth? Or is it easily manipulated by commercial interests and by political agenda? Is the past completely malleable to serve the interests of those who seek to control the present and thus the future?

While the online commons of Twitter rages with the #8964 and #6421wj hashtags (see also ChinaGeeks’ translation of tweets), the events of 21 years ago seem largely irrelevant to the struggles of daily life in modern China today. Life in China is so fast-paced, demanding and full of constant change. Those who are not struggling, are far too busy pursuing the seemingly unlimited opportunities available to the privileged. Perhaps some who actually know about the Tiananmen incident are engaged in what Forbes’ Gady Epstein calls “willed forgetting in service of today’s prosperity.”

Honestly (and I may regret admitting this), I personally couldn’t care less that Foursquare got blocked (see David Feng’s blog on how this went down). Yes, I should defend the online rights of my friends who want to spam their social networks check-in with their favorite Location Based Service (LBS), because next They will be coming after my own beloved social sites.  Yes, They certainly have in the past.  But for some reason, Foursquare seems so trivial in comparison to what happened 21 years ago.  See Slate for a moving collection of photos…looking through these pictures is a far better way to “check-in” to the past.

Alec Ash writes an interesting post on Danwei that provides insights into Beida university students today vs. those 21 years ago.  Danwei itself is an interesting small case study of how you can serve the Motherland with great heart and personal sacrifice, only to get punished for doing so.  In this case, via getting their site blocked.  Because of the GFW,  I’ve excerpted heavily from the post:

What parallels, then, exist between the two generations? For all the noise about the exceptionality of China’s ‘post-80s’ youth (80后), there’s quite a few. If it’s dangerous to generalize about the class of ‘89 from the actions of a few, then it’s less risky to generalize about students as a whole. Beida students today, like Lee before them, are concerned with their grades first, their fun second, and politics even further down the list. Yes, there are the nationalistic ‘angry youth’ (愤青) just as there are those who vocally criticize their government. But most are simply too busy preparing for their exams or TOEFL to care.
The second big similarity, though, is that there’s discontent beneath the surface, on a range of specific issues. For one, the sheer pressure and competitiveness of the world they find themselves in: 10 hours of study a day for many, just like it was in high school, and just like it will be in the best jobs. Then there’s the inequality, corruption and nepotism, just like in Lee’s day － perennial problems. A more recent one is the escalating price of housing in the big cities. Where thirty years ago their parents could buy a property relatively easy, students today are facing ever-more terrifying digits. There’s much to be unhappy about.
…

Another is that the West doesn’t cut it as an alternative to admire, like it used to. Sure, everyone watches Gossip Girl or Prison Break (depending on gender), but the idolization of everything Western which Lee describes － and which has a strong whiff of the May Fourth movement to it － simply isn’t there. And when it comes to politics, there’s a definite mistrust that the Western model could work in China. A metaphor told me by more than one young Chinese describes the Tiananmen generation of having just come out of a dark room, dazzled by the brightness. Their generation, the implication goes, has adjusted to the light.

I’ve heard Beida students describe their predecessors as “impulsive” and self-interested (why “I don’t like Wang Dan or Wu’er Kaixi”, one friend bluntly said). But how do they describe their own generation? Last week alone, I heard three self-definitions: one of a “pragmatic” generation, thinking of their own futures. Another of a generation with “no ideals”, nothing to fight for. But my favorite was simply a generation with “more choice”. Or put otherwise, a generation with more to lose from making noise, and more to gain from silence.

Alec first wrote about the differences about Beida students today vs. the late 80s on his blog 6.  The topic of the “disillusionment with the West” is definitely one that has gotten stronger after the 2008 financial crisis and the perception that China has weather the storm much better than the rest of the world.  Perhaps there is some idea that if they demonstrators had gotten their way, Western prescriptions would have been followed to the detriment of Chinese society.  Instead, Chinese leaders followed their own path adapted to the conditions of China at the time, and deserve some credit for the economic results that have come about.

Some have commemorated this day. From a smattering of red umbrellas on the square itself, to the now traditional demonstrations in Hong Kong (which has experienced some harassment), there are some efforts to bring people together to remember what happened.  Here’s Taiwan’s Ma Ying Jeou’s speech in translation. Peking Duck shares a new report and also shares his own feelings:

For me, this remains an open wound, and as long as the CCP keeps stonewalling, the much beloved phrase “Reform and Opening Up” will ring at least partially hollow. Those who keep demanding more contrition from the Japanese for their crimes against humanity should demand the same from their own rulers.

I don’t have the same feelings as Peking Duck. I feel the cadence of life in China, the all-consuming nature of the daily struggle for Chinese at all levels of society, and the sense that understanding modern history in China requires much more effort and discomfort than Westerners may realize. Modern China is simply too busy to remember.  Perhaps Gady’s “willed forgetting in service of today’s prosperity” is more like “inadvertent forgetting as a result of today’s prosperity.”

Tiananmen is not an “open wound” to me. Instead, it creates an uncomfortable realization of how fragile our conception of history is, and how the busyness of life can allow the past to be forgotten.

Photo credit: Bendilaowai.

Post from: CN Reviews

21 years: Modern China is too busy to remember

Kudos to Kai Pan for all the work he did in laying out his argument. The winner, however, is Chinayouren.

Bastard! *shakes fist*

Richard also summarizes:

“Freedom of choice” sounds wonderful. It sounds a little less wonderful when it’s “freedom of manipulated choice.”

…except the thrust of my argument is that “no choice and no freedom” sounds a whole lot less wonderful than “freedom of manipulated choice”.

Fortunately, Richard also left a comment going into detail with his disagreement, which I’ll quote below and respond to. Before doing so, I do want to state very plainly that I’ve been a fan of The Peking Duck for a long time. I usually agree with Richard’s point of view and I generally respect him, even if we have and have had some very strong disagreements (mostly over rhetoric).

Here we go with Richard’s comment:

I have to disagree. First, since the results are manipulated and the deck well stacked, it won’t leave such a terrible void in most Chinese people’s lives.

Agree it won’t leave such a “terrible void” in “most” Chinese lives, just the market share of Chinese internet users Google commanded, which I personally feel is a significant amount of people. I’m worried for those people and any Chinese netizen that could’ve been a future Google convert. Unfortunately, I really don’t think many people are thinking much about them or what they want.

The market will fill that void soon enough if it’s so gaping.

I agree the market will fill it if it’s so gaping. Yet given how “well stacked” the deck is, I personally feel Google is better equipped and positioned to deliver more to the Chinese internet user even in such a hostile, unfair, stacked-deck environment. It’s not that I don’t expect someone to fill the void, it’s that I have more confidence in Google doing it better and thus offering significantly more value to the Chinese netizen.

Second, if google does indeed end up leaving China (a big if) it will do far more than merely cause Westerners some brief self-satisfaction. It will create a serious dilemma for other companies doing business with China and will force the world to rethink what it means to cooperate with China.

I agree that Google leaving China will do more than just give some Westerners some brief self-satisfaction. I just don’t think it’ll result in as much dilemma and rethinking Richard thinks it will. Foreign companies have been working in and with China long before Google agreed to self-censorship. I respectfully think Richard is overestimating the relevance of Google’s departure to the vast majority of industries and businesses. I’m not saying it won’t cause ripple effects. It will. I just don’t think it’s going to be as revolutionary in the business world as Richard (and many other journalists, commentators, and pundits) think it will be.

Richard also says Google leaving China is “a big if”. I actually suspect likewise, but right now we still have Google saying it is going to uncensor Google.cn, possibly to probably playing a game of chicken with the Chinese government censors, seeing who will flinch first. If and when Google uncensors Google.cn, I’m curious as to what people, especially Richard, think will happen next. Will it get blocked but Google.com won’t? Or will it get blocked and then so will Google.com? We’re all making educated and reasoned predictions here, but I’m trying to figure out what will happen in the context of how it hurts the Chinese internet users.

I’m not saying that these are necessarily good things, but they would almost certainly happen. It would create all sorts of issues among China’s educated classes, whose support China counts on.

I agree that Google’s departure will create issues among China’s educated classes. Unfortunately, I think they can be mollified so long as the most practical tools Google offers, that may be so integrated into their professional lives so much that it would be a monumentally painful loss if they could not longer access and use them, remains accessible. And this wouldn’t be web search. This would be Google Apps like GMail, Google Docs, etc.

There would have to be considerable loss of face for China as well, though it’s hard to say how much they care about that.

I agree that there will be a considerable loss of face for China. But is that what we’re after? To embarrass China? To make it lose face? Without a question, I believe China has done many–too many–shameful and embarrassing things. It deserves what it gets. But this isn’t China forcing Google to leave. It’s Google forcing China to force it to leave by reneging on an agreement. The only argument against that is to say China is now breaking its part of the agreement and making it so uncomfortable for Google that Google has to leave, which I can accept if Google tells us just what it is. Until then, it’s more like a girlfriend threatening to leave until she gets something her boyfriend isn’t willing to give but she previously was fine with. Again, she’s free to change her mind, but what about their pooch (the Chinese internet users)? What happens to the dog?

So while it would be a shame for the Chinese who use google to be deprived of a choice, no matter how manipulated and bastardized it may be, the greater effect would be on China’s reputation both among its own citizens and among the global community China has been eagerly courting. It would be a painful step backwards. Compared to this full-frontal assault on China’s reputation, the “self-satisfaction” that may be felt by some Westerners can only be described as trivial.

I’m not comfortable with the attitude of using this as a “full-frontal assault” on China’s reputation. I think there’s a huge amount of “self-satisfaction” underpinning even the desire to do so. It’s retribution for all perceived slights, disagreements, and frustrations. I understand the inevitability, even necessity, of geo-political hardball, but cheering this on over how much face China is going to lose and how much trouble it will cause the Chinese government amongst not just the international community but also its own people is a little disturbing. This is the attitude that fuels China’s argument that foreigners are trying to destabilize it, trying to keep it down.

That might be playing into China’s hand.

Post from: CN Reviews

Google Leaving China Will Not Be A Revolution, Televised Or Not

The most amusing thing in the Google crisis is all the commentators crying about the loss of Google.cn and its negative consequences for the freedom of the Chinese.

No.

Wrong.

At least for this English-language China blogger.

I don’t believe that a censored Google.cn is far better than no Google.cn, much less cry about it.

I believe that Google in China is better than no Google in China. I cry about the loss of Google in China and its negative consequences for the freedom of the Chinese. It isn’t about the loss of Google.cn itself. There are several reasons, which I’ll get to in a second.

Evil is Search Engine Manipulation with Google’s name on it

But first, Uln’s argument is that the loss of Google.cn is a good thing for Chinese users because Google.cn engages in search engine manipulation (SEM). In other words, while the “engine” underneath Google.cn is the same as Google.com, the results shown are different, manipulated under agreement with the Chinese government censors to hide results the Chinese government finds objectionable and doesn’t want its populace to see. An internet user in China using Google.com would be able to see all the results but might get blocked when he or she tries to click on a result that leads to a blocked website. The user would be reminded of the government’s censorship. However, an internet user in China using Google.cn would see only manipulated results, effectively hiding both the information and the censorship. That Google.cn explicitly notifies users when results are manipulated is dismissed by Uln as being largely inconsequential because users begin to ignore it or it is often placed below the list of results.

These are all valid criticisms of Google.cn and, by extension, Google itself. Uln argues that this compromises the integrity of the Google brand name and value proposition (do no evil, we provide information, etc.) thereby betraying the trust of its Chinese users who see the Google name slapped on Google.cn as meaning something about the information Google.cn will provide. Uln writes:

When you type a “sensitive” term and G.cn removes all the results except the People’s Daily and Xinhua, Google’s responsibility is double: not only it supports those often objectible views on the first page, but it also implicitly states that it is the ONLY opinion existing in the World.

And the worse is, the Chinese who believed that would be right to do so, because Google’s well known principles clearly specify their commitment to give all the information available  in a democratic way.

G.cn is a shame for Google and it is probably the single most evil page on the Chinese internet (because it manipulates just like Baidu, but lends the brand name of Google to the manipulation).

But is a loss of Google.cn a good thing?

No.

Google.cn is Choice

Google.cn represents choice. It gives Chinese internet users another option for searching the web other than Baidu. Yes, there is Yahoo and there is Bing but neither of them are remotely as big as Google.cn, even if Google.cn is second place to Baidu. It gives Chinese internet users access to Google’s internet indexing and search methodology and algorithms. Even as Google.cn suffers the same manipulation of potentially displayed search results as Baidu, it provides different ordering and ranking of displayed search results.

This different ordering and ranking is precisely one of the main reasons why Google beat Yahoo and other search engines (MSN Search, Ask.com, etc.) elsewhere in the world. Google’s search engine returned better sorted and more relevant search results to users. Why continue finding your answers in the 3rd or 5th Yahoo search result when Google gave it to you in its first result? People started using Google because it delivered what they were looking for more efficiently.

That’s what a good search engine is about, providing the best search results for any given user inputted query, and Google is a good search engine.

Yes, having incomplete search results due to government-mandated self-censorship is bad, but Chinese users are not searching for potentially censored or blocked material all day long on Google.cn. They, you know, use it to do other fairly mundane things that don’t get the Chinese government censors’ panties in a twist. They look up news on celebrities, research product information, find the latest scores to last night’s NBA game, etc. etc. etc. Google.cn provides a valuable service to its users in China because it still helps them find the information they are looking for using qualitatively different and valuable methodology and algorithms than Baidu.

Google.cn gives Chinese internet users a choice.

Choice is freedom.

Losing Google.cn is a loss of choice.

Less choice is less freedom.

Therefore, loss of Google.cn is arguably a negative consequence for the freedom of the Chinese. It may even be something worth crying about.

The reason why “a censored google.cn is better than no google.cn” is exactly this. Google.cn still provides different results of value in the vast majority of Chinese web searches. This was very much part of the whole utilitarian argument that Google gave for agreeing to market and censor Google.cn in the first place. Even with the same scrubbed search results as Baidu, Google still has some competitive advantage worth offering to Chinese netizens through Google.cn.

No, the competitive advantage isn't only Chinese-specific Google logos.

Without Google.cn, its users will switch to Google.com, which is better anyway

Uln argues that…

Google.com is a Search Engine that is:

1- Exactly as good quality as Google.cn (identical index)
2- Without the manipulation of Google.cn
3- AND much less censored than Google.cn

…which is definitely true.

So, like Uln, some people may be asking why Chinese users use the self-censored Google.cn instead of the freely accessible Google.com? Uln answers:

And the only reason why Chinese don’t use it is that Google.cn sounds more Chinese to them, and they just don’t care enough.

No, it isn’t because Google.cn sounds more Chinese to them, it is because Google.cn is more Chinese to them.

I don’t think there’s enough emphasis given to display language being a major reason why people prefer Google.cn over Google.com. The vast majority of Chinese internet users instantly feel intimidated and overwhelmed by any website that is not written in Chinese. This is a big reason why Chinese people say “Google.cn is for the Chinese”. We can’t underestimate the importance of first impressions.

“But you can change the interface language of Google.com to Simplified Chinese…”

Never underestimate the importance of first impressions.

Hell, people even cite “google” being hard to spell for Chinese people as being a reason why Google is behind Baidu. Ever wonder why Google owns g.cn?

I feel there’s a tenuous compromise between the CCP censors and Google right now that allows Google.com to remain freely accessible despite it not providing the same manipulated search results as Google.cn. This is as long as the majority of Chinese internet users willingly head for Google.cn, as long as they see Google.cn as being tailored specifically for them, the Chinese. It’s like the GFW still allowing proxies to work so long as it achieves its mission with blocking the vast majority. The CCP information control scheme is not about preventing everyone from knowing certain things, it’s about preventing too many people from knowing certain things.

If Google.cn is no more and this leads former Google.cn users to simply migrate to Baidu, then maybe — just maybe — Google.com will remain freely accessible in China. However, if it results in too many former Google.cn users subsequently adopting and using Google.com, the CCP will indeed worry.

So a question then is how much will Google push the envelope with an unblocked Google.com. After all, Google will still have a business necessity and plan for capturing Chinese internet users, right? Even if Google does nothing to appeal to mainland Chinese users, leaving it the way it is, it could still get blocked if too many mainland users flock to it. If Google, however, intentionally seeks to make Google.com user-friendly enough to bring in substantial Chinese people to search and get its non-manipulated results, then it will be seen as a threat to the Chinese government’s efforts to control information and thus it will definitely face the possibility of being blocked outright.

And when that happens, Uln’s conclusion here…

Most probably the disappearance of G.cn will push the present G.cn users to switch to G.com, and the outcome will be increased freedom in the Chinese internet.

…will definitely look short-sighted and naive.

His argument isn’t hard to understand, though. Uln argues that this forced migration from a shut-down Google.cn to Google.com is a good thing because Google.com at least offers non-manipulated search results. Even if the Chinese users still can’t click through to the blocked websites due to the GFW, at least they can see and read the search result excerpts and, more importantly, know that such information exists out there. They would at least be aware of the existence of those dissenters and dissenting opinions that the Chinese government ideally doesn’t even want them to be aware of. That’s more freedom, right? That’s good, right?

That’s more freedom, right? That’s good, right?

Yeah, that’s good. It’s better than nothing.

Yeah, except until the Chinese government realizes that, blocks Google.com, and it indeed becomes nothing.

Nothing for the Chinese internet user. No Google.cn, no Google.com, no Google search methodology and algorithms. Only Baidu.

No choice.

No freedom.

Of course, Uln acknowledges such near the end of his post:

On the other hand, some commenters are already saying that I am too optimistic, and that the CCP will quickly come to the same conclusion I have come and block Google.com.

Without Google.com, the Chinese will learn of the Great Firewall and how to get around it, which is better anyway

But Uln continues:

The good news is that EVEN if they do block Google.com, the situation will still be better than today. The Chinese Google users will start to miss the G, and they will start to use web proxies to access Google.com, expanding their use and making the Chinese net population more conscious of the GFW and of the ways to cross it.

I’m not so sold on that situation still being better than the situation today. It is extremely optimistic, almost unreasonably so, to think a blocking of Google.com will by itself, or through the former Google users, make the general Chinese internet populace more conscious of the GFW and of the tools that could be used to cross it. Remember, most of the Chinese internet doesn’t use Google. It wouldn’t be a loss for most Chinese netizens because it wouldn’t directly affect their internet lives. If they aren’t inconvenienced in a practical manner, how can we expect a meaningful expansion of GFW-consciousness or use of GFW-circumventing tools?

Are we really hoping former Google.cn and then Google.com Chinese users are going to be freedom fighters? That they’ll become internet freedom and anti-censorship activists, handing out information on proxies and VPNs to the masses, enlightening them all?

For web searches, Baidu is the easy alternative. The one stickiness point will be Google productivity tools like Google Apps and, most notably, GMail. It will probably be easier to use a proxy or VPN than to accept losing one’s e-mail account, and this is definitely more so for companies and organizations. Yes, we’ll get a lot of these people but they’re likely and already plenty aware of the GFW, of proxies and VPNs. The real coup is not in these people expanding their use of proxies and VPNs or hoping they’ll help the general Chinese net population become “more conscious of the GFW and of the ways to cross it”, it is in them being inconvenienced so much that they demand the government unblock Google.com.

Yet, even then, it may only go as far as so they can use their productivity tools, not necessarily Google’s web search.

So where’s the “increased freedom in the Chinese internet” in that?

How is that situation really better than now?

Because a few more people will learn about the GFW and fewer still will bother to find out how to use proxies and VPNs? All this at the expense of broader daily practical choice and productivity for all the existing Chinese Google users and future would-be Google converts?

Some people surely see this trade-off as being worth-it, as being acceptable, as being desirable.

Me? I’m not so sure.

Why Google.cn is Evil and should leave China

That’s the title of Uln’s post.

It’s also a straw man.

This was never about whether or not Google.cn would or should leave China. It was about whether or not Google would or should leave China. I hope everyone caught onto the difference from the beginning. Everything is hinging on whether or not Google.cn is what allows Google, and also Google.com, to remain in China. We cannot approach answering this question without considering Google being blocked from China entirely if it doesn’t play ball with the Chinese government on Google.cn. If Google refuses to play ball on Google.cn, by uncensoring it or just shutting it down, we have to consider what may happen to Google.com. We should even expect the worst. In fact, that’s what we do best when it comes to Chinese government censorship, right? Why are we even entertaining that Google.com will remain unscathed and freely accessible in mainland China at all?

I’m not going to say there are only two possibilities. Life can surprise us at times. But requiring Google to censor its Google.cn search results was always, at heart, about the Chinese government’s insecurities with letting its citizens know too much information it fears will bring chaos to their order. It was not about dicking with Google just because it could. How reasonable is it to even suggest that access to an unrestricted Google.com can persist in mainland China, behind the Great Firewall, without a restricted Google.cn running cover?

Uln declares:

In fact, I maintain that Google.cn is the most evil product to ever have existed in the Chinese internet, and the World will be a better place without it.

No, I strongly disagree. I think it offered Chinese internet users valuable choice in most practical matters. Yes, I wish it could do so without manipulated search results but life is not black and white and sometimes we have to make the best of what we can control. You have to be in a game to win it.

No, I don’t think “the World” will be a better place without Google.cn. I think certain people in “the World” will rejoice for about a week and then continue on living their merry lives, using Google as they always have, and not really care one way or another that nearly 400 million internet users in China no longer have a user-friendly version of Google at their disposal. So no, “the World” will not be a better place, just temporarily more smug.

China, on the other hand, will definitely be a worse place without it and Chinese internet users will definitely be worse off for it.

Recommended Reading:

• “Google China cyber espionage saga” from ZDNet’s Zero Day (h/t ESWN)

Post from: CN Reviews

Google In China Is Better Than No Google In China

Set from Flickr user Junyu Wang (王俊煜):

Flowers on the sign:

Candlelight vigil:

Photographers and people gathering around:

Google headquarters at night:

Aeriel view from the building earlier in the day:

From Twitter user bonnae come some photos (source on img.ly):

Some more photos at Tinypic user foku:

Post from: CN Reviews

Google China photos: because I’m without words

Last week, I attended the Ad:Tech conference in Beijing and participated in a panel discussion on microblogging, a relatively new phenomenon on the Chinese Internet, as it relates to marketing. The reason microblogging (for example: Twitter, Sina Microblogging, fanfou, etc.) has received so much attention is that the format is fresh to most Chinese netizens and is growing very quickly. As a result, the potential opportunities are worth paying attention to.

Since blogs and web 2.0 hit the world, information no longer spreads merely from top to bottom or from the minority to the majority. The microblog enables information to have more sources and become more diversified and authentic. However, microblogging has not yet become hot in China. There are several reasons for this, such as the controls on the Internet in China (Twitter and Fanfou are blocked), the level of knowledge amongst netizens in China, the polarization of thinking, etc. Microblogging appears ready to explode in China due to its growing energy.

The panel discussion on microblogs began with its potential impact on ads and promotion. As a result, the opinions of attendees on microblogs in general were not expressed. For some, microblogs are a new method of promotion by ad service providers. To web portals, it is a tool to help generate page views. What on earth is a microblog? I am a Chinese blogger and a Twitter user. I am co-founder of BloggerInsight, a startup that relies upon Chinese professional bloggers for social sourced intelligence. From my point of view, the microblog is a simplified version of the traditional blog. It focuses on short length and convenience so that people can post their opinion quickly. It shares many characteristics with traditional blogs in that it is characteristic, social, and passes trust to followers. But it has its unique features as well, such as breaking and hot news that connect people more directly. Blogs and microblogs are not one-way marketing that leads directly to more sales or larger market shares. Blogs and microblogs represent character–and to some extent, the formulaic, industrialized, big brands have unfortunately lost their unique characteristics and are not able to adapt to the microblog. Topics on microblogs are posted quickly, but also fade away quickly as well attracting attention for only a short period. For the promotion of topics that need longer-term attention, it is necessary to use microblogs in conjunction with other outlets such as websites and traditional blogs.

Now back to the panel questions we discussed. The first question asked was whether the microblog is a good or bad thing for ads and marketing.

For brand owners, microblogs are positive as it allows for additional contact with consumers. That is a relatively obvious and positive opinion.

To web portals which need traffic to attract more ads, microblogs are also beneficial. The attention span of modern netizens is becoming increasingly short. With the ability to generate a large number of hits in a short period, microblogs enable new issues to spread faster and attract more concentrated visits. As traffic increases, it can be roughly viewed as a gathering place of readers, which means that it’s a gathering place for an audience to view advertising. As a result, a web portal can sell more ads.

Personally, I believe that microblogs do no harm. To companies that consider consumers God and really want to know about the demands of the market, utilizing microblogs is a way to convey a grassroots feeling and close the gap between companies and consumers. But to those who still have the intention of “educating” consumers and “guiding” the target market, to those which fail to change or listen to the demands of consumers and to those who still place themselves above consumers, microblogs probably represent the beginning of a nightmare as the microblog has the ability to screen information. Information that is unconvincing, not beneficial or boring will not be spread. Every blogger is a processor who selects information he/she wants to spread.

Another phenomenon we have to pay attention to is that the young generation in China has changed its way of consuming information. The impact of ads on traditional media like TV, radio, newspapers, etc is. decreasing and many people tend to say, “Ads are just bragging.” This tells us that people don’t trust ads very much. On the other hand, recommendations from friends and sharing experience via the Internet are booming. People gather together to share good products and warnings of bad products. There is no right or wrong in it–it’s just their choice in the market.

The above are just personal observations, the reasons for which are relatively complex. One point that cannot be ignored is that bloggers want their content to have an impact. They hope that companies openly receive their suggestions and that their value is respected. Those who have high value naturally become opinion leaders on the Internet (distinct from “Internet Stars” who are promoted to entertain netizens).

How to define opinion leaders in the world of blogging and microblogging?

Openly available data include the amount of contributed content, the number of followers, time started, etc. But that information alone is not enough. We are all aware that information no longer spreads in limited directions: opinion leaders are not limited to a few individuals, but can arise from a large number of microbloggers. What’s more, an opinion leader should be someone who has unique perspective or rich knowledge in one or two fields, has been contributing a decent amount of content, and has a large number of active users following him. Generally speaking, microblogs create communities. It’s human instinct for people with similar characteristics or interests to gather together. Microblogs are just a platform that reflects the instinct of the Internet to classify opinions. Those who can gather a community are anything but ordinary. Last but not least, the ability to influence others is actually as important as how trustworthy the content or opinion is. If a piece gets lots of promotion (retweets) once it is published, it shows that people who are paying attention agree with and trust what the blogger puts forward. Then there are bloggers who are rarely trusted, and they cannot get extensive retweets even if they say “Please RT this for me” in their messages.

I want to especially put emphasis on the fact that opinion leaders are not objects for netizens to make fun of, nor are “Internet Stars” there to entertain the public. They are important amongst their community and they are strongly connected to their followers.

Opinion on paying bloggers to write Ads

As to this question, all three panelists disagreed. Let’s look at some facts first. Once there were some companies that closely interacted with many top bloggers and tried to use their blogs as a medium to promote clients’ products. The result was that no company was able to survive through this business model, which shows that this approach to promotion is not appreciated by the market. Ad agency, Blue, also claims that they wouldn’t promote this way. It takes some time for famous bloggers to build up their audience and gain their reputation. Insincere characters and opinions cannot survive or be spread in the virtual world of the Internet. Fake information is not accepted by most bloggers and as a result, it is not worthwhile to write phony articles for money. On the other hand, there are companies who pay bloggers to tell the truth. They ask the bloggers to share their real experience of using a product and express their true feelings to a product or a brand. That is different. Under that circumstance, the money represents respect, not a buy off.

I regret to say that most of Chinese netizens are lazy and are not content contributors.  We are far away from the ideal web 2.0 world, with each netizen as an independent knowledge disseminator. These people are easier to be led and used. They will thus become stepping stones for companies which pursue nothing but profit. Fortunately, I am witnessing Chinese netizens, especially bloggers, become increasingly mature and many networking techniques such as microblogs will bring us together and produce social intelligence, which will soon realize its value in the development of companies. The chance to take advantage of ignorance will disappear and this may catch many people off guard.

“Microblogging, flattening the world” (“微动力，广天地”)

Only those who understand the character of the microblog and its value can truly enjoy this Chinese phrase. It is a tendency for micro values to be gathered and become the energy supporting companies to grow. I would say more and more tech or applications will be innovated to empower social intelligence. BloggerInsight is one of them.

Post from: CN Reviews

Microblogging: Its Future In China & In Flattening The World

Just how crazy can the Chinese media react to seeing a beautiful girl?

A young woman was caught taking off her coat behind US President Barack Obama during his town hall meeting in Shanghai early November.

I would not be naming her anymore as her name and photos are all over the internet now. And well, I am sure this blog would merit her more unwarranted attention.

But really, I find it weird how the press would just be entranced by her presence.

Anyone care to share their analysis on this topic? This is really one of the more distorted things I have noticed in Chinese broadsheets.

Some off-the-wall, “weird” news” keep popping up in the papers. Does this confirm what I read about the Chinese media lacking in “in-depth” news due to them being politically sensitive?

It’s quite entertaining though.

“I don’t want to be popular this way.” [from her blog]

Ummm…yeah.

Post from: CN Reviews

Chinese Media Entranced By Beautiful Girl In Red And Black

Rumors of Censorship Persist

There have been quite a few reports commenting at length on 2012 pandering to Chinese audiences, making the Chinese out to be the saviors of humanity, and thus escaping China’s censors. Interestingly, there are rumors amongst Chinese that the movie they’re seeing is still edited, that scenes involving flooding of China (one specifically being Tiananmen Square) were cut. Having seen the movie in a Chinese theatre, I can attest to several scenes that looked tampered with, where dialogue seemed to jump, but I’m not sure if those were just bad edits by the filmmakers. Therefore, I can’t confirm the validity of those rumors and suspect them to be just that: rumors. That, however, is what’s so interesting and says tons about mainland Chinese self-awareness, that they may be bitter enough with their own censors that they’ll propagate, believe, and perpetuate such rumors. I’m with them. I almost wanted to return my ticket if I was paying to see an incomplete film. Principles, man, principles!

Pandering to Chinese Audiences

Rumors of censorship aside, the other big issue is the aforementioned “pandering” to Chinese audiences, the alleged portrayal of Chinese greatness and benevolence. Uh what? Did we watch the same movie? I didn’t see squat that made China look good. Let me address the big plot points these reports mention:

‘The task would be impossible if given to any other nation.”

I didn’t see Americans “exclam[ing] that entrusting the Chinese to build [the arks] is the wisest decision“. I saw business as usual, that being China continuing to be the world’s factory. It’s not so much the wisest decision as the obvious decision. It wasn’t China being the “savior to the world, prying it from the edge of impending doom,” it’s just that China is the only nation with enough man-power to possibly build humanity-saving arks in under two years. Who else would you give the project to if you needed tons of labor, secrecy, and expediency? The United Auto Workers union? A Chinese even quipped, “Wait, I thought Americans wouldn’t trust Chinese product quality? Why would they have us build them?” OMG, they used lead paint in these arks! The Chinese are waging chemical warfare against us even in the end of days!

The People’s Liberation Army descends from the skies to offer help to Americans

I didn’t see the People’s Liberation Army helicopter dropping down to offer help. I saw it landing only to pick up those who possessed the one billion euro green boarding pass, as agreed, and no one else. Sure, he saluted, but that’s what soldiers do. If your “400-seat threater broke into a full-house applause“, believe me, it had little to do with how the movie positively portrayed the Chinese and everything to do with simply seeing your country and people making an appearance in a big-budget Hollywood blockbuster. Don’t forget, that saluting PLA officer (who, by the way, spoke remarkably American English) took the rich fat Russian and his fat twin sons but then proceeded to leave the “American survivors” to freeze to their deaths in the freakin’ Himalayas! Yeah! Go China!

China among the first nations to save those poor refugees

I didn’t see China as “among the first nations to open the gates” of its ark towards the end of the movie “to admit more refugees” (aka, the rich bastards whose own scheduled Ark #3 was damaged by a collapsed roof during the latest tremor and thus rendered unusable). We don’t even know if China had its own ark, as it seemed to be only a contingent of the people and nations aboard one of the eight arks headed by and represented by one of the G-8 nations. For all we know, the Chinese in that group of nations on that ark could’ve said, “Hell no! You crazy?!? Don’t open the gates!” but were nevertheless overruled by the others. It wasn’t a benevolent “China” that proactively did the compassionate thing versus a refusing selfish “America”, it was general human compassion winning over general selfish self-preservation. Heck, it was a black American who played the role of humanity’s conscience, was it not?

Seriously, what else was there in 2012 that could be misconstrued as being pro-China? Nothing really. In fact, the usual Hollywood romanticized ascetic Tibetan Buddhist monks probably got more screen time than the Chinese. Of course, I don’t think there were any egregious portrayals of China and the Chinese (at least on the surface, and a Tibetan grandma chopping off a chicken’s head off-screen for dinner doesn’t count, PETA) but what’s all this nonsense about 2012 praising or pandering to Chinese audiences? Give me a break. Anyone, Chinese or otherwise, presenting this movie as “pro-China” is egotistically reading way too much into an otherwise dumb but dazzling movie. Sorry.

Still Worth Watching

That said, Roland Emmerich’s 2012 is still  marginally better than, say, Alex Proyas’ Knowing. Both are 2009 films about the end of the world but only the latter descended into preachy pseudo-religious pseudo-science (yeah). The former just remains steadfastly focused on delivering edge-of-your-seat digitally-generated calamities with a half-hearted reminder that 1) life isn’t fair, and 2) who gets to live on says something about us as a society. Oh, and the kids in the latter were a lot more annoying.

2012 is about 2 hours and 40 minutes long, available in mainland China theatres in English with Chinese subtitles. Note that there are several portions of the movie where the characters speak other foreign languages, which are subtitled in Chinese but not English. Despite the cliched plot, as a special FX movie, 2012 is still worth plopping down some cash to enjoy on the big screen of a cinema.

Trailers and Previews:

Post from: CN Reviews

2012 Movie: Praising China & The Chinese? No, Not Really

I’ll first summarize Kaiser’s comments, and then share my own reactions and feelings below.  I do want to quickly say that this centripetal force of the Internet is the opposite of what I had in mind when I started CNReviews in 2007.  I expected that smart use of  internet media, even on a small niche blog like CNReviews, could create awareness and attention far greater than any person-to-person effort.  But the seeds planted by online outlets like Danwei, ESWN, Global Voices Online, Shanghaiist, even chinaSMACK, have not resulted in a great harvest of ongoing interest and understanding in China among Western readers, and instead remain a relatively small niche community serving Chinese expats and those with pre-existing interest in China.  And yes, the comment threads are indeed full of unthinking China-bashers, unthinking China defenders, self-important egomaniacs, and even sock puppets (and the China “experts” that hold them).

Meanwhile, in the real world, we continue to live apart (in geography and in mindset) as the dynamics of global capitalism increasingly tie us together.

Introduction: Kaiser Kuo

Kaiser Kuo (Twitter) moved to China in 1996 and is a rock musician in a band Chunqiu, writer, journalist, and speaker.   He most recently served as director of digital strategy for Ogilvy Digital China, where he wrote at the (now defunct) blog Ogilvy China Digital Watch.  In my opinion, he is one of the most articulate thinkers and writers about how internet and technology is shaping the most important bilateral relationship in the world today: US-China.

Will online relationships boil down to Red Guards vs. Rednecks?

Kaiser spoke on the growing awareness of the chasm between Chinese and Westerners thanks to increasing interconnectedness on the internet.  He gave a longer speech (video, 78 min)  at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, entitled “Shouting across the Chasm.”  His TedX speech was a shorter version but sounded the same themes (I will link to it when it is available).  Bob Page, at The Mercury Brief, did an exceptional job summarizing the speech.  The post, and the speech was picked up by numerous esteemed China blogs including China Herald, Useless Tree, China Digital Times, ChinaGeeks, Danwei, and Peking Duck.  Plenty of discussions have happened already around this speech.

Earthquakes happen when pressure builds up under the surface

By and large, US-China relations at a government to government level have been as healthy as it ever has been.  Last summer, during the Beijing Olympics, I recall watching George W. Bush enjoying the autumn days of his Presidency watching the US Women’s Volleyball team and thinking that China was one of the one bright spots of the presidency of George the Younger.  I (who never had a good thing to say about George W) even stuck my neck out and wrote about George Bush’s Uncharacteristically Nuanced Approach toward US-China Relations.  With Obama’s arrival 11/16 in Shanghai on his first trip to China as President (see itinerary on ForeignPolicy.com), a fairly functional relationship exists between governments.

But under the surface, according to Kaiser, at a people-to-people level, “a real crisis exists, and relations between Chinese and Anglophone Westerners are at a real low.”  To use the analogy of an earthquake, the surface looks calm, but the invisible shifting of the techtonic plates.

In the past, contact between Chinese and Americans “took place at small scale and with intermediation” often in “painfully polite settings.”  Bob Page summarized Kaiser’s contrast of the past with the present in his blog post:

“For most of the 30 years since China’s reforms began, Chinese and American civilians rarely met face-to-face in significant numbers,” Kuo says. “When encounters did take place, they were typically stage-managed events among civil, often painfully polite participants in sister city arrangements, trade delegations and cultural exchanges.

“In March 2008, in the run-up to the Olympic Games, Chinese people were curious about what the world would say about them…. But they were blindsided by negative English-language reporting. While hundreds of millions of Chinese had risen out of poverty, while the Chinese economy had grown by 10 percent annually for nearly three continuous decades, while China’s biggest cities had become forests of skyscrapers with vibrant cultural scenes, none of this was deemed newsworthy by Western news media….

“Instead, Chinese and Americans went after each other in the comment sections of news stories, blog posts, YouTube, forums and boards in an escalating people-to-people brawl that continues to this day. They fight over a litany of issues: Tibet, Taiwan, Tiananmen, trade, Internet censorship, religious freedom, Myanmar, Darfur, sanctions on Iran, carbon emissions, and so on. The first real people-to-people encounter between the world’s reigning and rising superpowers did not bode well.

What changed?  In short, English literacy in China, and the internet.  “What has happened since is two things.  One, has been the ubiquity of English language education in secondary schools in China, and the other thing that has happened is the stupendous rise of the Internet.” said Kaiser.  “In 1999, there were only 8 mm people on the Internet. Fast forward to today, we have 338 mm Internet users (in China) and in the course of 10 years, have achieved 94% penetration of broadband….this has made it possible for unmediated, large scale interaction with Westerners and Chinese.”

In this new media landscape, government-to-government relations are on the surface, while a hot, turbulent sub-surface of popular opinion continues a hidden techtonic shift.  What if a crisis were to happen?  How could popular opinion shape and limit government’s response?

Welcome to the Internet:  where your one-sided beliefs are reinforced by others just like you

Even within the West, with its tradition of free press and free speech, we see how the Internet has caused us to self-segregate into communities of similar interest and political leaning.  From Bob Page’s post:

But this is the Internet we’re talking about, which many of us believed would bring down barriers and usher in the death of distance, the good times of a global village. Instead, it has made us more fractured and tribal…. It’s also true within America, where nowadays you only read the political blogs and viewpoints of those who happen to be on your side of the political aisle.

We read what we want to read, according to Kaiser.  Those on the left read Huffington Post and Talking Points Memo, and those on the right read “whatever wacko right wing website they read.”  (Its clear where Kaiser falls on the ideological divide).  The “kumbaya” factor of the Internet is, in fact, more dead than alive.

In China, the internet “has historically been dismissed as greasy kids stuff” (e.g. internet games, internet cafes, entertainment) but is “also the emerging public sphere in Chinese life.  China has never had a public sphere for intellectuals to gather and discuss the issues of the day,” according to Kaiser.  As a result, the internet in China is extremely important for shaping popular opinion.  But the internet in China is no more enlightened than in the US.  In fact, at Chinese Blogger Conference 2008, Chinese blogger Ping Ke (平客 aka buchimifan) spoke on the need for greater rational online debate within the Chinese blogosphere.  And Roland Soong, in a speech prepared for Chinese Blogger Conference 2009 (see 1kg CNBloggerCon minisite and summary of event on GlobalTimes) and Blogfest Asia, shared the reasons why he doesn’t allow comments on the EastSouthWestNorth translation portal that he runs.  An excerpt:

I do not think it helps for me to facilitate this kind of exchange between “Red Guards versus Rednecks” (or “Chinese Fenqing (angry youth) PK Foreign Fenqing (angry youth)”).  I may want to communicate some information to people, but I am likely to encounter the kind of situation as described by Leung Man-tao (梁文道) in Southern Weekend:

在一篇一萬字的文章裏看見一句令我不滿的話，忘記剩下那部分吧，我要寫一篇兩萬字的回應來批判它。我為什麼要耐著性子看完 那篇東西呢？我為什麼要深入甚至同情地理會它的真正含義呢？它只不過是我用來表達自己的機會和藉口罷了。

In a 10,000 word essay, I came across one sentence that displeased me.  I forgot about the rest of that essay and I wrote a 20,000 word essay to criticize it.  Why should I bother to read the whole essay?  Why should I bother to delve into it or try to comprehend its true meaning?  It is merely an excuse and opportunity for me to express myself.

Indeed, I have come across someone who wrote: “I am not interested in the facts about what happened in Tibet, because I already know how to define the event.”  What is the point for providing information to people like that?  They are not interested in any information.  My own utility to them would be to provide the excuse and/or platform to rave and rant about their pre-established and immovable positions.

Spiraling toward bipolar disorder?  Toward a more resilient system of US-China relations

Unfortunately, the diagnosis of our condition is more painfully clear than the remedy.  Kaiser, blogger Roland Soong, journalist/professor Rebecca McKinnon and blogger Aimee Barnes have each shared some thoughts on how we can prevent the downward spiral that we won’t even recognize until something goes wrong.  I’ll caveat this by saying that these suggestions are in English for the English speaking audience.  Of course, there is just as much work to be done on the Chinese side, and supporting those who can influence Chinese opinion in a positive way is just as much part of the prescription of success.  It is very much a two-way relationship.  Here are Kaiser’s recommendations:

1. Cultivate personal knowledge – From Roland Soong’s post: “Knowledge is the first step. You can[not] talk about something unless you are knowledgeable about it. Why do you want to talk about that something? Because you think that the knowledge has changed your position. And that knowledge may also change your readers, especially those who form the subject of the discussion.”  Blogs are a great place to start.  For English-language readers, Kaiser mentioned several sources including Alltop China, CN Reviews, ChinaGeeks, Danwei (Danwei China mirror site) and ESWN. CNReviews had highlighted blogs that translate Chinese netizen comments and other blogs to watch in 2009.
2. Understand Chinese History – Accept the need to understand Chinese history.  Chinese current events are framed by a view of history held by elites.  Understand that view as best you can.  According to Kaiser, a place to start would be The Search for Modern China by Jonathan Spence.
3. Learn what Chinese people actually think when their defenses are down. The conversations taking place when it’s not believed ‘whitey’ is around are decidedly more nuanced.  Blogs that translate Chinese content (listed above) can be a starting point.

Rebecca MacKinnon wrote an open letter to Barack Obama advocating a people-to-people approach toward building relationships between Americans and Chinese.  I posted on an Aug 2009 conversation I had with Rebecca and excerpted from the original letter:

Just as you have used new technology to engage with the American electorate, your China policy can be greatly strengthened if you conduct a real conversation with the Chinese people. Listen as much as you talk; provide a much-needed platform for open discussion. The U.S. embassy in Beijing should build a Chinese-language website modeled after change.gov, focused not just on U.S.-China relations, but on the range of concerns and interests – from environment, to food safety, to factory safety standards, to education and real estate law — shared by ordinary Chinese and Americans. Some linguistically talented State Department employees should start blogging in Chinese. Open up the comments sections, see how the Chinese blogosphere responds, then respond to them in turn. Translate some of the Chinese conversation into English for Americans to read and react, then translate it back.

Perhaps the idea of open comments will just draw out “those shouting loudest on both sides…Red Guards and rednecks,” as Kaiser Kuo characterizes the internet.  I believe that more person-to-person efforts are complementary to and more important than an online approach.  This could potentially involve study abroad, educational tourism, volunteer tourism, sponsored events, cross-border events, and informal delegations.  The goal of online efforts should be to convert online connections into in-person connections, and take it out of the blogosphere and into the realm of real-world discussions.

Aimee Barnes comes up with a 5 point approach:

1. Including youth leaders and business influencers into the dialogue now hosted by academic and governmental elites
2. More support for business leaders in both countries to build bilateral relationships
3. More study of Mandarin among US kids and adults
4. Deeper understanding of China’s history and government among Western media
5. New “equal access” research institutions/think tanks that include more Chinese-born specialists

In my opinion, based on 2 years of following English-language Chinese blogs, mainstream media, and actively blogging on CN Reviews, I am more and more convinced that actual person-to-person contact, as opposed to online blogging and conversation, is the most important ingredient to building trust, relationships and increased understanding and mutual respect.  I suppose many of you would say “Duh, of course.”  But if we believe that the internet can be a force for evil (or divisiveness) we must also conclude that it can be a force for good (or improved mutual understanding).  In any case, the “genie can’t be put back in the box” and online discourse will continue on both sides of the Pacific.  But energy should be placed toward efforts that bring together business leaders and non-governmental leaders on issues that we both care about, and rely on material self interest as a mechanism for building bridges.  And a much heavier investment in person-to-person connections between leaders in all fields in China and US is necessary and cannot be replaced by the online discourse dominated by trolls, fenqing, panda-huggers, panda-bashers, Red Guards, and rednecks. In the meantime, your free speech is not guaranteed on the Internet, at least not on our blog.  You can go create your own blog if I don’t like what you have to say!

From written content, to community organizing

For people like Kaiser and Rebecca MacKinnon who are working on writing books, I feel a key metric of success is not just the number of books sold and the number of online references, but the number of influential people on both sides that engage in a deeper and more informed dialogue with the other side as a result of the book.  It is an exercise in community building and community organizing, rather than just the act of authorship.  The pen is mightier than the sword, but only in combination with eye-to-eye contact (or at least numerous meals and drinking together), and trust built over time.

Business partners, motivated by self-interest properly understood

In an article entitled “New Friction and Vast Agenda Awaits Obama on China Trip” in the Wall Street Journal, Ian Johnson highlights that the issues that require US-China coordination have exploded:

A decade ago, most issues discussed at China-U.S. summits were limited to three issues: human rights, nuclear nonproliferation and trade. Now, the list of topics has grown to include almost every problem facing the world, from clean energy and the war in Afghanistan to African development and fixing the world economy — all of which are expected to have a place in talks between Mr. Obama and his Chinese counterpart, President Hu Jintao.

“For the first time in the history of our relationship, global issues are at the top of the agenda,” says Kenneth Lieberthal, a fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington who was a special assistant on Asian affairs to former President Bill Clinton. “This is new territory for us.”

It is a change that analysts on both sides see as potentially problematic. Chinese officials and analysts note that the U.S. still has an arms and high-tech embargo on China — hardly something one does with a true partner, they say. “Obama wants us to become strategic partners or friends but we aren’t either of those,” says Yan Xuetong, a professor of international relations at Tsinghua University. “We are business partners who share material interests rather than common values.”

It is this last comment from Yan Xuetong that gives me hope and concern.  We indeed have significant material interests, from energy, environment, the monetary system…so lets start there.  With self-interest properly understood, we can build a more resilient global system between the US and China.

Lest you think that Kaiser is too distraught about our future, he claims to be optimistic about our future, and we recently had a great time on Oahu.  Here’s a picture:

I’m interested in your comments.  Even if you are a Red Guard or a Redneck!

Post from: CN Reviews

Rednecks, Red Guards & Trolls: Kaiser Kuo on US-China Online

The title sounds judgmental, but it isn’t in the least. It’s the truth and, more importantly, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it. I am, of course, generalizing the China Blogger Conference and all of the varied speakers, talks, and subject-matter presented over this weekend. While these have definitely included both foreigners and matters that both indirectly and directly affect foreigners both in and outside of China, the vast majority of foreigners will find this conference largely inaccessible and very distantly relevant to them. That almost all of the talks are made in Chinese is only the first, though arguably the largest reason.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong about that, that anyone is to be blamed, and that’s just the way it is. Writing for CNReviews, I have a naked emphasis on what I write about for the predominantly foreign audience we target, an audience we reason as having some basic desire to learn more about China and the Chinese people, so they can better understand both for whatever ends they themselves may have. I have an idea of what this audience may think, how this audience might react, and how I want to influence you. I hope I’m not clearing any mystique or exposing any secrets here.

The takeaway from CNBloggerCon for our audience is that it happens, that a group of Chinese people are bringing other Chinese people together to share, discuss, and promote that which matters to them, that their ideals, ideas, and motivations are being acted upon, that they’re not the sheep too many people too often dismiss them as. Here, they talk about charity, censorship, human rights, artistic expression, professional collaboration, internet phenomenon, and driving or contributing to the continued positive development of China, both online and off. Those of us who are here to see what could be shared with foreign audience are like the Chinese who hopped online to watch Obama accept the American presidency, beholders instead of participants, more eavesdroppers than the target audience. Nevertheless, we are impressed and moved, even if we knew there was no rational reason to feel otherwise.

This is what I can tell you, what I can offer you as a lowly blogger here on behalf of a blog that seeks to bridge China with the West, in hopes that you’ll remember, be impressed, and accord due respect. I won’t tell you about the backwater poverty-stricken schools too few of you could ever find. I won’t tell you about the pseudo-celebrity Chinese Twitterati too few of you could follow. I won’t tell you about the Chinese university students aiming to create a youth-oriented print magazine too few of you could read. But I can share some reasons for expanding our mindsets and our perspectives on mainland China, the Chinese, and what they’re up to.

If you don’t need the reminder, are already impressed, and already accord due respect, then you’re ahead of the game, and you are already a good participant in this ongoing and growing global dialog. Thank you. I need you, CNR needs you…even if and as much as you don’t need us.

For more English-language coverage of the 2009 CNBloggerCon, be sure to look for updates from Jeremy Goldkorn at Danwei (China mirror) and Sky Canaves at the WSJ’s China Real Time Report.

Image credits: Former CNR blogger and Twitter Beast David Feng.

Post from: CN Reviews

CNBloggerCon: For The Chinese, Not The Foreigners